Prior service

<p>DeepThroat wrote, "Guess what? West Point doesn't exist to train good corporals and sergeants--that can be done MUCH more quickly and cheaply--it exists to train officers."</p>

<p>True, but over their four years at West Point my sons didn't see the antagonism between prior service and direct entry cadets you seem to anticipate. The relationship between prior service cadets and their classmates at West Point may be different from the parallel relationships among midshipmen at Navy or cadets at AF. Despite efforts to bring the place closer to the serving Army, cadets know that West Point is NOT the Army. Prior service cadets are mined for information on that mysterious "Real Army" about which cadets constantly speculate.</p>

<p>Moreover, NCOs are held in very high esteem at West Point (think of the Silent Vigal held for the recently deceased CSM Sutherland). The participation of seasoned NCOs in cadet training at West Point has increased tremendously over the last couple decades (I don't know about Navy). TAC NCOs are generally closer to cadets in their companies than are the TAC officers. (TAC NCOs receive special training before duty at West Point ... all are sent for at least an Associates Degree in Counseling ... most have Bachelors.) It is pounded into the cadets' heads that their relationship with their platoon sergeants will pretty much determine their success or failure as platoon leaders. The trick is to simultaneously learn from, gain the respect of, and lead your platoon ... especially your NCOs. Intense exposure to NCOs at West Point helps prepare cadets for that tricky balancing act.</p>

<p>Thus, prior service cadets, most of whom were junior NCOs, are highly respected by the vast majority of other cadets. That goes double for those with combat experience. A CIB carries a huge amount of weight.</p>

<p>The cadet who was named best New Cadet during Beast this year is a prior service Medic. I understand there is tremendous respect for him.</p>

<p>DeepThroat wrote, "Guess what? West Point doesn't exist to train good corporals and sergeants ..."</p>

<p>Actually, it does ... such training is inherent to the Cadet Leadership Development System. This might be a good place to discuss the subtle differences in leadership training between West Point and Navy. Beginning with major reforms at West Point in the late 1970s, and accelerating through adoption of the CLDS in the early 1990s, the old "Fourth Class System" was replaced by the "Four Class System." As I understand it, Navy and Air Force still mostly retain the "Fourth Class System," though I understand that in recent years both have quietly visited West Point to study the CLDS (the respective academy administrations actually do cooperate and willingly learn from each other in these areas -- the incentive to change is especially strong at AF given their recent problems). </p>

<p>In the "Fourth Class System," the three upper classes harass and "develop" the plebe class. Survive plebe year, and things became relatively easy. Under the "Four Class System" currently in place at West Point, each class has progressively more training responsibility. If anything, demands on cadets become greater, albeit different, as they progress through their four years. Plebes are cadet privates and learn to be followers, basically responsible for their own performance. Upperclassmen are expected to make sure that performance is up to standard. Training responsibility increases each year. Each yearling is a cadet corporal team leader, responsible for the academic, physical, and military performance of one or two plebes. The yearling's military grade depends largely on "their" plebes' performance. Each cow is a cadet sergeant squad leader for at least one semester, responsible for eight or so plebes and yearlings. Again, their military grade will depend largely on the performance of the cadets in their squad. When not a squad leader, cows hold down NCO leadership and staff jobs in the cadet chain of command (academics, spirit, athletics, supply, etc.). Firsties are cadet officers ... in platoon, company, battalion, regiment, or brigade leadership positions or in chain of command staff jobs. At all levels, you are responsible for the performance of your subordinates -- and your military grade (30% of your QPA) depends largely on that performance. Not surprisingly, once CLDS was implemented, hazing went way down and productive instruction and motivation went way up. </p>

<p>Thus, in DeepThroat's words, West Point actually does "exist to train good corporals and sergeants," so that they will later be good officers. The underlying concept is "leadership as service" ... training to assume the awesome responsibility of serving and leading America's sons and daughters in time of war.</p>

<p>Judging by reports of young grads' performance in Iraq and Afghanistan, CLDS works. I've heard and read comments from active duty old grads who, after the obligatory "The Corps has ..." comments, say that the current junior officer corps is the finest in their memory, better than they and their classmates were. They say that CLDS -- which many admit they reflexively resisted when it was introduced -- not only has improved the performance of WP grads as junior leaders of troops, it has also influenced 2LTs from other commissioning sources by the example of selfless service those grads evince.</p>

<p>Cadets who pay attention learn that "ring knockers" are not welcome in the "Real Army" and that know-it-all junior officers don't fare well. Most young grads don't even wear their rings at their respective branch officer basic courses or initial assignments with troops, except at official formal events or at unofficial social gatherings. One son told me about a recent grad who was trying to cover with mud his vanity license plate, a gift from his parents, that read "USMA 05 1." This does not mean grads aren't proud to have gone to West Point, but it does show that they realize that their performance now is what counts ... not their record at West Point. It also doesn't mean that the WP grads aren't quickly identified ... apparently they pretty much stand out ... but rather that they expect no special consideration. </p>

<p>Of course, some proto-martinets do slip through the system from WP -- and from other commissioning sources -- but according to reports, there are many fewer today than in the old days.</p>

<p>"This wasn't a rant thread until you posted on it. "</p>

<p>Hmmm . . . </p>

<p>"but just about every p/s guy I've met thinks that WP is full of BS . . . "</p>

<p>"just about every p/s guy I've met thinks that WP is full of BS...you'd honestly think it was a joke compared to real basic. you'll be "hazed" . . . "</p>

<p>"And I for one had a SL who was ditz . . . "</p>

<p>My bad. </p>

<p>DeepThroat</p>

<p>"True, but over their four years at West Point my sons didn't see the antagonism between prior service and direct entry cadets you seem to anticipate."</p>

<p>The antagonism (I would personally use "contempt") generally runs in only one direction, to wit, from the priors to everyone else. As you point out, the bulk of the cadets have no idea what the "real" army is like, which greatly elevates the status of the priors in their eyes. The point is---and this really will not be understood until the cadets graduate and have a few years in the service, is that the view of the army maintained by the prior enlisted cadets is so vastly different from what the new lieutenants will experience as to be essentially worthless. The TAC NCOs have at least 2-3 times as much experience as the average prior enlisted cadet, and the TAC NCOs have also worked as platoon sergeants for Lts, so they actually know what kind of stuff the cadets will be dealing with when they get commissioned.</p>

<p>"This might be a good place to discuss the subtle differences . . . "</p>

<p>I am intimately familiar with these changes, culminating with Gen Christman's reforms which were instituted in the mid-late '90s. I completely disagree with your contention that four-class system is designed to make "good corporals." Everything that is done at WP is for the sole purpose of developing the finest junior officer leaders possible. There is no need for a lieutenant to first be a corporal. Does he need to know how to be a follower? Sure. But the bottom line is that a lieutenant simply has different responsibilities from a corporal. I get the feeling that you my be inferring that I'm denigrating NCOs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The military could not function without the talented NCOs that fill its ranks. But, you don't need to be a NCO before you can be an officer. In fact, I would probably argue that most lieutenants would be better off if they had never been enlisted (but that is a topic for another time). </p>

<p>"Cadets who pay attention learn that "ring knockers" are not welcome . . . "</p>

<p>This is obvious. I think I wore my ring five times while I was on active duty. You are correct that the academy grads will stand out, since they are simply superior to their counterparts from the other commissioning sources (as their performances will aptly demonstrate). </p>

<p>DeepThroat</p>

<p>When I suggested that WP does, in fact, "exist to train good corporals and sergeants," I thought it was obvious that I was not being literal and was only referring to the ultimate mission of training officers for careers in the Army. Sorry if I was unclear.</p>

<p>Your comment that, "In fact, I would probably argue that most lieutenants would be better off if they had never been enlisted (but that is a topic for another time)," caught my attention. As the father of two new-minted 2LTs, I'd be very interested in your take on this ... by personal message if you think it is too far off topic or inappropriate for this forum.</p>

<p>dt,</p>

<p>You've never backed away from controversy before, so if you don't mind, I think this is very interesting and would love to read your comments also.</p>

<p>Why I think most new lieutenants would be better off without any prior enlisted experience:</p>

<ol>
<li> Priors tend to constantly second-guess the NCOs that they currently have. They are more easily able to come up with the way they woud have done things, and tend to impose this on their current NCOs.</li>
</ol>

<p>New LTs, on the contrary, tend to take one of two directions. Some may be VERY micro-managing, reasoning that if they are responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen in their platoon, it is perfectly acceptable for them to control every aspect of platoon life for their subordinates. Others, hopefully the majority, will cede a great deal of authority and control to their NCOs. As time goes on, they will hopefully take some of this control back, but I think that platoons will generally operate much better if the NCO has MORE authority rather than less.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Micro-management. Folks may argue this one with me, but I feel like micro-management occurs with a very high frequency in the NCO ranks. I'm not saying that it is even a bad thing at this level, since perhaps the view is that the most junior enlisted folks NEED to be micro-managed in order to be succssful, but the fact of the matter is that many NCOs seem to see micro-management as a way of life. Many prior enlisted Lts are unable to recognize that they are no longer NCOs. They continue to micromange their platoon sergeants once they become Lts. This creates a nasty environment where the NCO feels like he doesn't have the authority that is commensurate with a man of his rank and experiece, because the Lt is constanty "getting down in the weeds." </p></li>
<li><p>The non-priors are just plain smarter. After all, why else would they have enlisted rather than go to college. Okay, maybe there are SOME good reasons, but I swear that generally the priors are just not quite as intelligent as they straight to officership counterparts. (I know that this will cause a great deal of controversy, and I wish I had the emprical data to objectively back this claim up, but I fear the DoD won't give the info up). This won't be as important in the straight up leadership piece, but when it comes to the montonous, boring jobs that platoon leaders have (writing award, evaluations, letters of recommendation, etc), the intellect of the non-priors will tend to put them at an advantage. </p></li>
<li><p>Trainability. This is a characteristic that many of the priors simply will not have. They have "been in the real army," so they are less likely to accept feedback from anyone! Why would they listen to an enlisted man? After all, if their NCO had known anything, he would be an officer now himself, right?</p></li>
</ol>

<p>These are just my thoughts after a few years of service, and a few years reflecting on this service. If folks think I'm way off base, let me know, and maybe I can clarify my thoughts. </p>

<p>DeepThroat</p>

<p>Interesting perspective. </p>

<p>Under your point #3 you suggest that prior service cadets are not as smart as direct admits, but that you don't believe that DoD would ever release empirical data to support your contention. In fact they have, the 2003 GAO Report on Military education -- here's a link: <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d031000.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d031000.pdf&lt;/a>. Data is for the West Point, Annapolis, and USAFA classes of 2002.</p>

<p>I direct you to Appendix II, Table 12, on page 37. This would seem to show that at WP direct admits from the enlisted ranks were actually stronger academically than the class average, and that USMAPS admits were somewhat weaker, as would be expected given USMAPS' mission. </p>

<p>However, if academic performance at West Point were the only criteria for success as an Army officer, there would have been many more Mark Clarks and no George Pattons or Ulysses Grants in our history. </p>

<p>The data shows that 2002 recruited athletes also performed somewhat less well academically than the average for their class. Given the horrendous load on a D-1 college athlete these days (probably twice what was expected when I played in the early 1960s), it is surprising that the difference isn't greater. Moreover, as I'm sure you'd agree, it takes a lot more than academic smarts to succeed as a leader of troops, and several senior officers at WP have told me that there is data floating around showing that corps squad athletes perform somewhat better on average as junior officers -- especially as PLs -- than their non-athlete classmates.</p>

<p>If I read the story linked below, Colonel Coffman '78 was an enlisted man before attending West Point.</p>

<p>Here's the link: <a href="http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7794%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7794&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I was enlisted before I was commissioned (I already had my degree btw). My experience gave me a profound respect for Senior enlisted folks. It also gave me quite a bit of credibility as a new 0-1 (more than I deserved, in fact). The people I led knew that I knew the business end of a mop and had stood the midwatch. Huge advantage over my peers. And it gave me the good sense and perspective to listen to the senior NCOs. As for priors being dumber...in my bootcamp company were many with degrees inclluding 2 with Masters. Not typical, I'll admit, but you can't stereotype so readily.</p>

<p>... word</p>